Revisiting The Journalist’s Creed

During my lifetime, I’ve witnessed the journalism profession falter—And that’s as nice as I can put it. In the late 1980s and early 90s, I attended the University of Missouri School of Journalism — the first and (as they’ll tell you) the best J-school on the planet. So if there is a ground zero to journalism – Mizzou has to be it. The first dean of that school, Walter Williams, wrote a creed in 1914 and I don’t know how that happens, but I guess one day you just wake up and write yourself a creed. —So he did that and it goes a little something like THIS — The Journalist’s Creed

  • I believe in the profession of journalism.
  • I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a lesser service than the public service is betrayal of this trust.
  • I believe that clear thinking and clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism.
  • I believe that a journalist should write only what he holds in his heart to be true.
  • I believe that suppression of the news, for any consideration other than the welfare of society, is indefensible.
  • I believe that no one should write as a journalist what he would not say as a gentleman; that bribery by one’s own pocketbook is as much to be avoided as bribery by the pocketbook of another; that individual responsibility may not be escaped by pleading another’s instructions or another’s dividends.
  • I believe that advertising, news and editorial columns should alike serve the best interests of readers; that a single standard of helpful truth and cleanness should prevail for all; that the supreme test of good journalism is the measure of its public service.
  • I believe that the journalism which succeeds best — and best deserves success — fears God and honors Man; is stoutly independent, unmoved by pride of opinion or greed of power, constructive, tolerant but never careless, self-controlled, patient, always respectful of its readers but always unafraid, is quickly indignant at injustice; is unswayed by the appeal of privilege or the clamor of the mob; seeks to give every man a chance and, as far as law and honest wage and recognition of human brotherhood can make it so, an equal chance; is profoundly patriotic while sincerely promoting international good will and cementing world-comradeship; is a journalism of humanity, of and for today’s world.

WOW, right? I mean those words (were they true) could inspire generations of journalists to get out there and serve the public trust!

But, the problem is two big things —

  1. Corporate ownership of 96 percent of everything we see, hear, read and experience. Actually, about 7 global corporations own all of the media and you can bet your bottom dollar they censor and control the content. If you don’t think so, I encourage you to speak with any of my journalist friends who were fired or laid off for disagreeing with “management.”
  2. Bias — The media today have SO much bias along the political spectrum. This isn’t ok and I was taught (way back when) that when you show your personal bias, you aren’t giving the reader the opportunity to make up his/her own mind and that is NOT our job. But today, media wants attention and the BEST way to get attention is to throw a tantrum – so you see that almost non-stop. And they take ZERO responsibility for fact-checking or the “truth” they’re putting out. It’s pretty sad, really.

To combat bias today, readers have to become acutely aware of what is being presented, how it’s being presented and of course, what is being left out — lies of omission are sometimes the most powerful of all. I frequently tell people to watch out for the word “could” in headlines. By definition, this word must be read “and also could not” to be accurate. Monkeys COULD fly out of my nose while I’m writing this. And they also could not. See?

Here is more help. I use Allsides.com to determine an outlet’s overall political bias and I remind myself of that bias (either right, left or whatever) while I’m taking in that news and then (and this is important) I CHOOSE whether to believe it or not. I never just accept any news outlet’s take because their bias is just built right in.  For example, CNN’s famous headline when President Trump was shot and nearly killed in Pennsylvania was “Secret Service Rushes Trump Off Stage After He Falls at Rally.” Dude, now THAT is either some WILDLY stupid reporting or the direct result of a huge case of TDS. I don’t think Walter Williams would approve of that. When you are shot in the ear by an assassin, that isn’t a fall. Just SMH.

Nick Shirley and James O’Keefe are two modern journalists who follow the creed today even though they do so with an iPhone instead of a fountain pen. I don’t think the entire profession can learn by their example because they simply are NOT allowed to do so. And as news consumers, we need to REALLY understand that. It’s not going to get better and likely to get worse. So we have to be our own thought police in our own heads and QUESTION everything while DECIDING for ourselves what is and isn’t “fake news.”

So I’m sorry Walter, your creed and the journalism profession are largely dead today. The world changed and it won’t be changing back. But there is hope with the emerging citizen journalists like Nick Shirley that the public trust may still be served.